Sit, Jesus. Stand, Jesus. Good Jesus. Bad Jesus.

Every movement, whether political, religious, economic or social, hinges on the values of that group and how effective those values are at creating the desired transformation and keeping the movement alive through both good and bad times. Every group has a leader, at some point in time, who best articulates and embodies those values. Such a leader can either create a movement outright or accelerate a movement already begun. In later years that leader is revered and idolized for his accomplishments.

Christianity is such a movement. The difficulty and vision of Christianity are found in the person of Christ. The calling of Christ is to “…take up your cross and follow Me.”

The 20th Century has been noted for the acceleration of individual rights and individual freedoms. With that movement, whose leaders are you and me, comes a world tailored to the yearnings, wishes and demands of the individual. This movement has important repercussions in how we view faith and the values that faith demands.

As a psychologist in practice for 20 years, I have always viewed wryly my colleagues eagerness to talk about spirituality and their reluctance to talk about religion. Most psychologists view the former as healthy, adaptive and part of the process of becoming self-actualized. Most psychologists view the latter as regressive, reactionary, growth inhibiting and at best, quaint.

All this is to say that psychologists are quite willing to help people apply their spirituality in their own best interests. The happiness and meaning derived from one’s spirituality is the guage often used by clinicians to measure it’s effectiveness.

So how, then, would have psychologists evaluated poor Martin Luther. Tormented in adolescence, fearing the wrath of God in lightening, he converted to Catholicism and became a priest. But that did not alleviate his torment or his self-loathing. Hounded by guilt he drove himself deeper into his faith. He practiced penance with fervor in an attempt to alleviate his suffering. But to no avail. Ultimately, over years, he stumbled on “the rest of his faith,” that is, the glorious grace of God and his all sufficient supply in Christ. He wrote years later:

If you are a preacher of mercy, do not preach an imaginary but the true mercy. If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world. We will commit sins while we are here, for this life is not a place where justice resides. We, however, says Peter (2. Peter 3:13) are looking forward to a new

heaven and a new earth where justice will reign. It suffices that through God’s glory we have recognized the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No sin can separate us from Him, even if we were to kill or commit adultery thousands of times each day. Do you think such an exalted Lamb paid merely a small price with a meager

sacrifice for our sins? Pray hard for you are quite a sinner.

Luther’s work transformed Catholicism and Western Europe over the next 300 years. Most would argue that it was an overwhelmingly positive transformation. What if, upon seeing Luther’s suffering, a friend referred him to a psychologist who respected his spirituality, but did not respect his religion? Chances are, he would, with the best of intentions, undermine a pending revolution in the Christian faith, perhaps driving Luther into individualism, mysticism and irrelevancy.

Religious practice has recently been categorized along these lines:

Protean Religious Practice: involves picking beliefs and rituals from a broad variety of religious and spiritual practices.

Constrictive Religious Practice: involves picking a set of beliefs and rituals from a single authority.

Our hypothetical clinician would likely encourage Luther toward Protean Religious Practice in an attempt to free him from neurotic guilt associated with his constrictive religious practice. In that regard the clinician would be encouraging Luther to make religion “in his own image.” Luther would be commanding his religion to do his bidding, to escape his suffering. Sit Jesus, Stand Jesus. Good Jesus, Bad Jesus.

But that is not the example of Christ, and it is not the example of his disciples. Neither is it the example of the early church which suffered persecution to assert the dignity of female children being killed in Rome; or who confronted a murdering emperor (leading to the accountability of leaders to God); or institutionalized charitable giving, or contributed to the humanistic movement of the Rennaissance; or who contributed to the education of western Europe through the development of universities. All of this was based upon a constrictive religious practice. Jesus says I cannot choose whom I will love and whom I will not love (protean); the gospel is constrictive, demanding and calling us into the light of accountability: “If you cannot love your brother whom who have seen, how can you love God whom you haven’t seen?”

Similar challenges face clinicians and Christians as they attempt to understand same-sex attraction. Suffering is part of every Christian’s calling. All of us suffer as Christians for different specific reasons, but for the same single reason, we are sinners, born into a sinful world. We live for a better world to come and endure trials and tribulations for that future reward. Like Luther, I do not understand why I am suffering specifically (except that I am a sinner, in a sinful world) and I do not know yet what plans God has for my suffering (I doubt it will be as constructive and meaningful for the world as Luther’s suffering). I do know my sins are bold and require His amazing grace. And I am so thankful that nothing bars me from His unending mercy.

27 thoughts on “Sit, Jesus. Stand, Jesus. Good Jesus. Bad Jesus.”

  1. I don’t even know how to respond. I wrote something persuasive and erased it. Then I wrote something sarcastic and erased it. Now I just think I’ll say this:

    You and I disagree on Scriptural interpretation. I have no desire to debate theology with you. I will just choose not to question your motivations and request that you do the same.

  2. Timothy,

    I’m just noting that you have a conflict of interest. Paul talked about working out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Why fear and trembling? Because you run the risk of creating a religion which is centered around yourself – the ultimate in narcicissm and the definition of the New Age.

    We do bank reconciliations in order to tie the internal reality of our general ledger to an external and independent reality – the bank. How do you ensure that your inner spirituality is inline with God’s desires? Traditionally, we have done this by living in a spriritual community and conforming to their values and interpretation of the Bible. If you take it all cafeteria style, then how do you know you’re correct? What is your authority and how do you ensure that your own interests don’t overinfluence you.

    I don’t care what you believe or if you believe anything, but you’re telling people that one can be gay and non-celibate and still be a Christian in good standing with God. This flies in the face of all historical Christian traditions and practices and, um, you have an interest in it being true. Its not unreasonable to ask you for your authority to say this. If all you can offer is your own sincerity, then don’t be surprised if many from a traditional background don’t accept it. You may be sincerely wrong.

    I have always admired your careful, step by step logic in your posts, especially those responding to the haters who post on exgaywatch. Your methodical approach would make me guess you were a lawyer, not an accountant. But when it comes to this issue, I don’t see the same logic, but rather a retreat to sincerity and feelings.

  3. Gordo,

    Look around a little more and you might find many folks who have devoutly held beliefs that differ from yours … but who aren’t self-serving.

    Take, for example, Jay Bakker and his Revolution Church (the subject of the documentary series, One Punk Under God). When he took his position, he lost the vast majority of his speaking engagements and a huge chunk of his funding. He was seriously concerned that his church would have to fold – but he also felt that God had placed a message on his heart. Hardly self-serving.

    It can be tempting to dismiss those who disagree with us as self-serving or worldly (liberal) or hateful or legalistic (conservative) or whatever. That’s a cop out. It ignores sincerity and is arrogant and self-righteous (guess I really have an opinion, huh?) 🙂

  4. I think this is where much the tension resides.

    If the Bible is authoritative in matters of personal behavior then Luther’s words add meaning to the power of God’s grace. (I think we have never touched on the Luther passage quoted in this article).

    “If the mercy is true, you must therefore bear the true, not an imaginary sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners. Be a sinner, and let your sins be strong, but let your trust in Christ be stronger, and rejoice in Christ who is the victor over sin, death, and the world.”

    If the Bible is an amalgamation of letters and books assembled for political control of a spiritual movement, then there are cases where we are seeking to apply God’s grace to behavior that may or may not be sinful.

    But who knows which sins are really sins and who knows which behaviors have been wrongly exluded from biblical teaching as sins using such a subjective model? It is quite a connundrum if one is to be consistent in rigorous application of deductive thought.

    I think Luther got it right, it is the only way that make sense to me. We are all sinners, for a variety of reasons (see, I fit diversity into the model too:)). Because of Christ’s provision for our sin, there is no barrier to God’s love for us.

    Pretty cool.

  5. Tim,

    I would like to see a liberal Christian find a greater message that is cohesive and consistent and NOT self-serving. Funny how that works.

  6. Our biases influence our interpretations but there is an attitude that says, if the Bible doesn’t comport with my view of compassion or reasonableness then I reject it.

    Perhaps it would be more accurate to say “there is an attitude that says, if this understanding of the Bible on this particular issue doesn’t comport with my view of the Bible’s overall view of compassion and reasonableness then I question this understanding”.

    While I don’t think it fair to accuse conservative Christians of being legalistic haters, I also don’t think it fair to accuse liberal Christians of rejecting scripture.

    I don’t know of any liberal Christians that “reject” scripture, but I do know that some seek to see a greater message that is cohesive and consistent with their understanding of the message of Christ. If a scripture doesn’t seem to fit, they try to determine it’s relevance and context. You don’t have to agree with them or their approach, but to dismiss it so cavalierly serves little purpose but to demonize those with whom you might disagree.

    And it isn’t worthy of you.

  7. The church has often been an institution shamefully lagging behind in social progress and social justice. From slavery to the right of women to vote, they have not had a clear and consistent voice leading to progress – or justice often working in opposition to basic human rights of freedom and equality.

    Is the glass half empty or half full? As we covered when discussing the Schoenewolf controversy, I think when it comes to emancipation, the glass is over half full for evangelicalism and support for civil rights.

    Regarding biblical interpretation, I agree with everybody. Our biases influence our interpretations but there is an attitude that says, if the Bible doesn’t comport with my view of compassion or reasonableness then I reject it.

    I think it is true that I (we) see through a glass darkly.

    When I have discussions about what is taught I try to start with agreement about a set of hermaneutical ground rules. Makes things more orderly, I think.

  8. Gordo,

    Sorry my take on individualism still seems so merged with narcissism. They are not the same thing in my book, but I do think individualism can be quite narcissistic (just as communitarianism can be, and authoritarianism ans so on).

    Perhaps a separate post on Individualistic Narcissism would be the best place to voice such views.

  9. David,

    Thanks for responding. I state again that I’m not a biblical scholar, and add that I’m not a scholar of religious history or theology.

    Nonetheless, your argument appears to me to be this: I agree with Luther’s reforms. I support a Constrictive or authoritative view of religion. Therefore Luther’s view of religion was truly authoritative unlike those authorities against whom he rebelled.

    I do not disagree that Luther was a scholar. Nor do I disagree that his views were based on his idea that his understanding of scripture was more pure and holy than that of the Pope. But it seems a bit reconstructed to think that he was submitting to an authoritative accepted doctrinal position and that the rest of the structure of Christendom was radical. It ignores completely that Luther, gasp, rebelled against a thousand years of belief about Papal authority to speak for God on earth.

    But we can disagree on this.

    However, I think your view on the nature of earliest Christianity is flat wrong. It assumes that there was agreement on the basics of the message of Christ prior to the Counsel at Nicea. And though that argument may have some validity in the fourth century immediately before the counsel, it is far from true for the first couple of centuries of Christianity.

    We have to recall that the many and diverse “heretical” churches were as Christian as those who later won the religion war. They all relied on “the message of Christ” but disagreed wildly about what that message was. And as for the divinity of Christ (or the humanity) that ranged from absolute to non-existent.

    And dismissing the Paul/James disagreements as “about meat, poverty, when and where to speak in tongues, who should work and so on” seems to me to be completely missing the point. The disagreement was much deeper and related to whether the newly converted non-Jewish Christians needed to become Jews as well as Christian – ie. come under the Law and Prophets – which is hardly a trivial dispute.

    I think the problem with setting up a dichotomy between “those who believe in God’s authority as per Scripture” and “those who pick-and-choose what they believe based on what feels good” is that these are self-defining.

    EVERYONE thinks they see the Scripture the right way and that it is the others who are picking-and-choosing. Those who are strict literalists all have excellent reasons why they ignore scriptures with which they disagree (about, for example, slavery or women). And those who believe the Scripture is to be read in context and in the whole have excellent reasons why they ignore scriptures with which they disagree (about, for example, sex).

    And anytime ANYONE disagrees with an authority, well obviously THEY are holding to the TRUE authority of scripture and it is the authority figure who is falsely picking and choosing.

  10. David,

    Thanks for your responses.

    I don’t understand how you relate individualism and narcissism. Are you saying that ONLY individualists can be narcisists? Most people whom I would label narcisists are not individualists.

  11. Jag,

    Thanks for chekcing in and participating.

    I am pleased that you have a different experience of your colleagues than I have of mine.

    As you may know the DSM III was full of religious prejudice in it repeated description of religious experience as indicators of mental illness. The DSM IV corrected this glaring error.

    Furthermore, in the ethical guidelines, formal respect for honoring a client’s religious beliefs was not made until the early 1990’s.

    Finally, it is easy to identify in each of the founding fathers of psychology more than just scientific skepticism toward Constrictive religion. Skinner, Freud, Jung and Rogers all fancied themselves, in one way or another, as replacements for Constrictive religious practice.

    There are several generations of psychologists out there trained in a pre-1990 model of psychology. A scientifically endorsed form of bigotry. Psychologists look nothing like the general population they treat when it comes to religious belief or practice.

    I agree with you that the evidence from the social sciences has become more accurate in recent years. Religious practice is correlated with a number of positive health outcomes. But frankly, Religious practice isn’t necessarily supposed to lead to those outcomes all the time…sometimes it leads to suffering and misery. :(.

    Regarding scientists in the pews ignoring or distorting good science:

    True enough. We worship a God of Truth, not a God of Political Action Committee. I hope this site can tolerate the truth.

    I think St. Augustine said: “All truth is God’s truth.” So I do not fear the scientist, I welcome him in worship of the God who created what we are so curious about.

    “The church has often been an institution shamefully lagging behind in social progress and social justice. From slavery to the right of women to vote, they have not had a clear and consistent voice leading to progress – or justice often working in opposition to basic human rights of freedom and equality.”

    I don’t think the church as an institution has often been shamefully lagging. I think sometimes the church is rightly at war with itself for Protean practice (tolerating slavery; depriving rights to women; winking at Jim Crowe laws) fo a Constrictive faith. I am proud of those Christians and others who claim the mantle of Christ and later of Luther and “cleanse the temple.” And there are many Abolitionists, Civil Rights workers and Women’s rights workers who did just that :).

    Human rights very near the foundation of Christianity. It is why Western Civilization is known for human rights.

  12. Tim,

    “claiming Luther submitted to the single authority of Scripture is, to my way of thinking, justification after the fact.”

    I can’t help you there. I think that perception is flatly wrong. Luther was a noted biblical scholar for years prior to his posting the 95 thesis. No justification after the fact here. He had studied the scriptures for years and saw how the Constrictive had been perverted into the Protean by Medici Popes and others.

    Regarding “vague notions of the Message of Christ”–I cannot agree with you here. Paul and each of the epistle writers claim their authority in each letter. There is no vagueness as to how these authors saw the person of Christ, neither is there any vagueness as to their instructions to their Church members. There are disagreements about meat, poverty, when and where to speak in tongues, who should work and so on.

    The view of the gospels as Constrictive was formally established some 1600 years ago at the Council of Nicea. It was informally established with their first writing…why else would these apostles lay down their lives?

    Constrictive religious practice is to protect me against the Koreshes of the world. And to protect the world from the David Koresh inside me :).

  13. Gordo:

    “What starts as protean becomes constricitve…” I don’t think this is a one way journey. I think what is constrictive can become protean as well.

    It can be argued that much of Christ’s preaching was against the protean views of the pharisees. Paul would argue that the Law was not meant to create righteousness, but to convict of sinfulness.

    Humanism implies the innate goodness of man and a predetermined, albeit intuitive path toward betterment. Humanism implies a protean model. I don’t think we can describe the age of humanism divorced from Deism (or Christianity) as a path toward betterment.

    Individualism is no panacea for the human condition. It is a legitimate defense against the tyranny of the mob. But individualism is it’s own form of tyranny, when poorly applied. That is when I call it narcissism.

  14. Good Morning and here I go.

    Jim: You may have figured this out by now, but the Category “Constrictive” you have accendentally converted to “Consturctive.” Although I like that better, technically it is wrong.

    Regarding two groups…I appreciate your drawing my attention to the simplicity that such categorization implies. I believe there are two groups of people in the world, the right and the wrong (I trust I will find out which membership I can claim in the hereafter and live humbly unitl then).

    I think the labeling in this piece of research is interestingly “nuanced” (based upon the labels alone, which group would you want to be in?).

  15. Wow.

    Thanks for all the feedback on this post. I am in session all day today and will follow-up a bit more precisely with each question raised tonight.

    Blessings,

    David

  16. David,

    Does individualism equal narcissim?

    Is a narcissist always an individualist?

    You wrote recently about ” a significant vulnerability to narcicissm in any profession and any religion which authoritatively states origins in the face of significant mystery.” Isn’t constrictive religious practice inherently the result of the narcissim of the single authority?

    The great “What if” of history is what our world would look like today if the Athenians had defeated the Spartans. The second great “What if” is what would have happened if the Roman Republic had not fallen? Would Christianity had risen to usher in thousands of years of darkness, ignorance and repression? Who knows?

    We are returning to a pre-christian society (post-christian, if you will) where choices regarding sexuality, morality and religious practice are left up to the individual. This is what so terrifies the religious right.

    I would love to hear what the anceint philosophers had to say about today’s feel-good theraputic society. Know thyself is very different from know thy feelings.

  17. Regarding others seeing Luther as Protean…I believe there is a rather aggressive reconciliation process underway between the Catholic and the Lutheran Church. I think Luther had more in common with St. Francis of Assisi than the Pope did at that same time.

    True, and I don’t discount that at all. However I don’t think it’s fair to divide the Christian world into Protean and Contructive parts. I was just trying to point out that such judgments will allways come down to who is doing the dividing.

    As an aside, I’m remided of something I heard a few eyars ago. “There are twy kinds of people in the world: those who think there are two kinds of people and those who don’t. This post sort of reminded me of that.

    And it also reminded me that the Christian world has long been divided along so many lines: Manicheans, Gnostics, East, West, Chaldeans… The Orthodox accuse Rome of Protean tactics, the Orthodox and Rome both excommunicated the ancient Ethiopian Orthodox Church for accepting some teachings of the Trinity and not others, the list goes on. King Henry VIII chose to leave behind Rome’s prohibition against divorce (obviously, I’m over-simplifying here, but you get the idea), and the list goes on…

    This process of picking and choosing has, ironically, accellerated greatly since the 95 Thesis was nailed to the cathedral door. How else to explain the more than thirty-thousand non-Catholic and non-Orthodox Christian denominations and sects that litter the landscape?

  18. The church has often been an institution shamefully lagging behind in social progress and social justice. From slavery to the right of women to vote, they have not had a clear and consistent voice leading to progress – or justice often working in opposition to basic human rights of freedom and equality.

    Psychology itself has a fairly shameful history as well. The lack of inclusion of minorities, women, etc…has been a part of the field that is not often discussed.

    However, I would not blanketly state that most psychologists (clinicians) would react as you suggest. In fact, I would suggest that any psychologist who directs his client religiously (or nonreligiously) is not conducting ethical practice.

    The church is the psychologist’s comrad – and I’m not sure what type of colleagues you know (or settings you work in – for I work in academics, and this is not the response) who are unaware of the research. Churches and religion provide a comfort to those who suffer, a belief in something greater than themselves, etc…and hold tremendous benefit to believers. This is documented by research.

    It is also notable, however, that much of the Christian faith (although not all), encourage their congregants to believe in opposition to current research – for example, on same-sex couples and childrearing, etc…and often do not paint an accurate portrait of life as an a gay/lesbian person living in America. The church, rather than being a beacon for all, does not advocate for even basic civil rights for these individuals – for example – in housing or employment. Even protesting such things.

    Not advocating for basic civil rights appears prejudicial and discriminatory. Likely, because most of your colleagues understand the position of the most prominent medical and research organizations of our time, they are skeptical of groups that distort or misreport statistics – as well they should be. All “religions” often get lumped together. While some are leading the way, others are lagging behind…but for a nonreligious group as a whole – sometimes these get confused and all appear the same.

    As someone who is a Christian, and a scholar, I have been deeply disappointed in the academics who sit in the churches. Enlightenment and education do not always make your opinions/findings popular, but we have a duty to God and to ourselves to be accurate.

    Martin Luther King Jr. (obviously not the same man)

    “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. Human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability; it comes through the tireless efforts of men willing to be co-workers with God..”

  19. Constrictive Religious Practice: involves picking a set of beliefs and rituals from a single authority.

    And yet Luther is known primarily for challenging the beliefs of the single accepted authority.

    (claiming Luther submitted to the single authority of Scripture is, to my way of thinking, justification after the fact. ALL Christian movements and leaders – from David Koresh to Billy Graham – claim to be based on Scripture. Those that challenge authority and do influence change end up being labeled as wise and (oddly enough) orthodox, the others are heretical kooks.)

    I question whether the gospels are constrictive or whether they were made constrictive by those who had an interest having control. I don’t believe Michael and Timothy see them as constrictive.

    Give the man a prize. 🙂

    For the first several hundred years of Christianity it was anything but based on any shared authority – other than the rather vague notion of “the message of Christ”. There was no canon and “Christian churches” ranged wildly in belief about whether Old Testament writings were to be fully adopted or rejected out of hand. There was little to no concensus about which Christian writings were accurately portraying the message of Christ – some of which became the NT and some of which landed on the trash heap of history. Ultimately the proto-orthodox (to use Bart Ehrman’s term) won the religious wars and it became much more authoritative and singularly structured. However, even a casual glance as Scripture demonstates that during the earliest moments of Christianity all-out hostilities raged between just below the surface of the relationship between Paul and James the brother of Jesus.

    To view the gospels as constrictive requires, I think, reliance on a particular cultural perspective based on 2000 years of translation and tradition and a willful ignorance of historical context.

    But I certainly don’t claim to be a Bible scholar. 🙂

  20. Hmmm. How do I feel? That has become the most important question of the therapy generation.

    I am pretty excited actually. I think the narcissism of individuality is playing itself out…as it did in Rome and in Greece. It just isn’t a viable community value.

    I think that the examples of Rome and Greece are a bit distorted, Rome was largely a totalitarian, militaristc regime; episodically democratic. Greece was never a nation like Rome, I think Athens was where democracy resided sporadically. But certainly not in Sparta and elsewhere.

    Regarding Christianity starting off as Protean…I have to disagree, so much of its foundation lies in Judaism. Again, the beauty of a self-critical religion is exposed as Christ confronts pharisees with their misapplication of scripture and their exploitation of scripture for power.

    Thanks for checking in Gordo.

  21. Great post, David. Thank you.

    It’s ironic that Christianity began as an individualistic movement and became tied down with ritual and hierarchy during the decline of the Roman Empire. If you want to see the remains of the ancient bureacry of Rome look at the modern Vatican. What starts off protean becomes contrictive – ask any old hippy who used to live in a comune.

    I question whether the gospels are constrictive or whether they were made constrictive by those who had an interest having control. I don’t believe Michael and Timothy see them as constrictive.

    The late 20th century is not so much an acceleration of individuality, but a return to the ancient ideals of Greece and Rome. The tolerance and acceptance of homosexuality is only a part of that return. Another part is the pick and choose mentality people today are adopting towards spirituality. It appears as if 2000 years of constrictive Christianity is being laid aside.

    How does that make you feel?

  22. I disagree (obviously). The issue of grace, overlooked by the practice of the Catholic church at the time was established clearly in Paul’s letter to the Romans (and elsewhere), so I think your application of a protean model to this historical event is not supported in this instance.

    Regarding books, both cannonical and otherwise, I appreciate that Luther’s faith int he Universal Catholic church was sorely tested. His insights about the abuse of indulgences and penance led him rightly back scripture. I appreciate his skepticism as it helps me stay curious about the absolute statements of the religious leaders of our day. Are they scripturally sound? Are they in the spirit of Christ and His love?

    Regarding others seeing Luther as Protean…I believe there is a rather aggressive reconciliation process underway between the Catholic and the Lutheran Church. I think Luther had more in common with St. Francis of Assisi than the Pope did at that same time.

    That is the beauty and power of a self-critical faith.

  23. Our hypothetical clinician would likely encourage Luther toward Protean Religious Practice in an attempt to free him from neurotic guilt associated with his constrictive religious practice.

    One might argue that Luther, in fact, did move toward a Protean Religious Practice. That would have been the prevailing Catholic view at that time. It’s just a matter of your preferred frame of reference. Luther, for example, chose to remove accepted books from the Cannon of the old Testament. He also, briefly, was uncertain of the authenticity of some of the New Testament Epistles. Now his decisions are accepted by a quarter of the world’s Christians as being Constructive, while the remaining three-quarters see it as Protean.

    I have no doubt however thathis insights did have the effect of transforming all of Christianity for the better. That’s my view at least. But remember, substantial numbers of Christians world-wide don’t see it that way.

  24. One historic quibble: Luther “converted to Catholicism”? What was he before? Unless he was Moravian, I’m not sure what other options existed at the time.

Comments are closed.